5 ms·

Isn't the 560 billion for "income security" a social services thing? Isn't it giving money to people who don't have jobs, or make very little money? So that's q

Isn't the 560 billion for "income security" a social services thing? Isn't it giving money to people who don't have jobs, or make very little money? So that's quite a lot of money in the welfare/social services category. And personally I'd count social security and medicare in the same sort of category. It's the government spending a ton of money inefficiently providing services that should be provided by the free market, and saying this helps people. It's good to help people, but it's not the right role for Government, which isn't very good at it. On the other hand, the military spending may be a lot of money, but at least it's in one of the areas the free market has the hardest time with -- it's spending money in an area where the Government actually has some expertise and some business doing anything.

adamc 17y ago
Social security provides money, which is about as efficient as it gets. Are you positing that private pension benefits are somehow spent more efficiently? As far as whether it helps people, it unquestionably does. Maybe it hurts other people (those who pay taxes), but that income transfer would not likely happen under private plans. So it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
- Nwallins 17y ago
  How is the revenue from social security different from that of other federal taxes (esp. income)?
- xenophanes 17y ago
  Yes, private pensions have different rules and regulations about when to put money in, take it out, etc. For one thing, social security forces you to contribute. If you would rather spend your money on something else (in general, or just this month), you can't. Sometimes that hurts people who are trying to make rent. Sometimes it's inefficient b/c they could have used the same money for something better. Private pensions, if they get nothing else right, at least are voluntary.
- anamax 17y ago
  > As far as whether it helps people, it unquestionably does. Maybe it hurts other people (those who pay taxes), but that income transfer would not likely happen under private plans. SS is a big income transfer from blacks and hispanics because they don't live long enough to collect much. It's a modest income transfer to women and the poor.
timr 17y ago
You're missing the point. Go ahead and cut income security entirely. You'll slash some incredibly popular (and useful) programs, and you'll save less than one social security. Again, we can't keep slashing at the smallest parts of the budget and hoping to shrink the deficit. It's nothing more than political theater, designed to appease a vocal minority who don't have a sufficient understanding of the problem.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  I'm saying that 560 billion, for one category of social services, is not a small part of the budget. Of course I would like to slash at social security too.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    What do you purpose to do with the millions of elderly people who rely on it? It's easy to cut budgets on paper but there's a very real moral and ethical cost. Social security is a life or death issue for the elderly.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      We could phase it out without reducing benefits for people who have already paid a lot into it or are already getting paid benefits. There may be better and faster plans too, I don't know, but this one would work without hurting anyone.
jsz0 17y ago
How does the free market provide services to people who have no money? I agree it's good to help people but we have social security and other social programs exactly because there was no help when people needed it. I don't think anything has changed since. It's probably gotten worse.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  The free market does not provide forcible wealth redistribution. Most Government social services are not designed to be efficient wealth redistribution and nothing more. They do other stuff like get involved with medicine or retirement. There is no good reason for that. Even if you advocate forcible wealth redistribution, that is no justification for most Government social services. It'd only be justification for having one single program that gives no-strings-attached money to poor people straight out of the federal budget. I think taking people's money by force is bad.
  - dandelany 17y ago
    Wait - so you don't think any government social services are worthwhile? You don't have any faith at all in 100 years of social progress? I believe the reason that we have as many social services programs as we do is because this country has learned that helping out the poorest of our citizens significantly raises the productivity, happiness, and health of the country as a whole. Public health programs that keep those below the poverty line vaccinated prevent outbreaks of dangerous diseases. Unemployment insurance helps those who have lost their jobs get back on their feet before they become homeless and less likely to become employed, or desperate enough to commit crimes. Reduced-price meals for poor students ensure that they are focused on their studies rather than on trying to feed themselves, and therefore more likely to get the most benefit out of their education. The entire idea behind healthcare reform is the idea that if we work to insure every citizen, it will benefit all of us in the end by keeping us healthier, and hopefully driving down costs as a result. I don't like my money being taken by force either, but to think that the free market would provide any meaningful wealth distribution without being directly forced to is just naive.

adamc 17y ago

Social security provides money, which is about as efficient as it gets. Are you positing that private pension benefits are somehow spent more efficiently? As far as whether it helps people, it unquestionably does. Maybe it hurts other people (those who pay taxes), but that income transfer would not likely happen under private plans. So it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Nwallins 17y ago
How is the revenue from social security different from that of other federal taxes (esp. income)?
xenophanes 17y ago
Yes, private pensions have different rules and regulations about when to put money in, take it out, etc. For one thing, social security forces you to contribute. If you would rather spend your money on something else (in general, or just this month), you can't. Sometimes that hurts people who are trying to make rent. Sometimes it's inefficient b/c they could have used the same money for something better. Private pensions, if they get nothing else right, at least are voluntary.
anamax 17y ago
> As far as whether it helps people, it unquestionably does. Maybe it hurts other people (those who pay taxes), but that income transfer would not likely happen under private plans. SS is a big income transfer from blacks and hispanics because they don't live long enough to collect much. It's a modest income transfer to women and the poor.

timr 17y ago

You're missing the point. Go ahead and cut income security entirely. You'll slash some incredibly popular (and useful) programs, and you'll save less than one social security. Again, we can't keep slashing at the smallest parts of the budget and hoping to shrink the deficit. It's nothing more than political theater, designed to appease a vocal minority who don't have a sufficient understanding of the problem.

xenophanes 17y ago
I'm saying that 560 billion, for one category of social services, is not a small part of the budget. Of course I would like to slash at social security too.
- jsz0 17y ago
  What do you purpose to do with the millions of elderly people who rely on it? It's easy to cut budgets on paper but there's a very real moral and ethical cost. Social security is a life or death issue for the elderly.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    We could phase it out without reducing benefits for people who have already paid a lot into it or are already getting paid benefits. There may be better and faster plans too, I don't know, but this one would work without hurting anyone.

jsz0 17y ago

How does the free market provide services to people who have no money? I agree it's good to help people but we have social security and other social programs exactly because there was no help when people needed it. I don't think anything has changed since. It's probably gotten worse.

xenophanes 17y ago
The free market does not provide forcible wealth redistribution. Most Government social services are not designed to be efficient wealth redistribution and nothing more. They do other stuff like get involved with medicine or retirement. There is no good reason for that. Even if you advocate forcible wealth redistribution, that is no justification for most Government social services. It'd only be justification for having one single program that gives no-strings-attached money to poor people straight out of the federal budget. I think taking people's money by force is bad.
- dandelany 17y ago
  Wait - so you don't think any government social services are worthwhile? You don't have any faith at all in 100 years of social progress? I believe the reason that we have as many social services programs as we do is because this country has learned that helping out the poorest of our citizens significantly raises the productivity, happiness, and health of the country as a whole. Public health programs that keep those below the poverty line vaccinated prevent outbreaks of dangerous diseases. Unemployment insurance helps those who have lost their jobs get back on their feet before they become homeless and less likely to become employed, or desperate enough to commit crimes. Reduced-price meals for poor students ensure that they are focused on their studies rather than on trying to feed themselves, and therefore more likely to get the most benefit out of their education. The entire idea behind healthcare reform is the idea that if we work to insure every citizen, it will benefit all of us in the end by keeping us healthier, and hopefully driving down costs as a result. I don't like my money being taken by force either, but to think that the free market would provide any meaningful wealth distribution without being directly forced to is just naive.